Log in:  

Register

Moderators

Drop in, give us some feedback and talk to the team

Moderator: Irondan

Re: Re:

28 Sep 2017 14:59

blutto wrote:
LaFlorecita wrote:So many Café-only posters arguing in this thread. Never see them in PRR subforum. Maybe they should move to a Politics forum.
In fact I don't really see the point of the Café if it causes so much trouble.


....gosh, that is the best idea I've heard all morning....just splendid.....thank you so very much for bringing such clarity to this obviously vexing problem....

Cheers


Wonderful idea! Drive that unwanted traffic away from the site! :idea:
User avatar MarkvW
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,147
Joined: 10 Aug 2010 20:13

28 Sep 2017 15:23

I don’t want to even imagine what a politics forum looks like. :D
Skyline Drive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPjM6rZ4pN0
_____________________________________________________________________________
Canton Ave Climb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C90ZPlbEfmU
User avatar Jspear
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,103
Joined: 23 Feb 2014 03:50
Location: N. VA, USA

Re:

28 Sep 2017 15:55

LaFlorecita wrote:So many Café-only posters arguing in this thread. Never see them in PRR subforum. Maybe they should move to a Politics forum.
In fact I don't really see the point of the Café if it causes so much trouble.
hey flo, had i not been alberto's huge fan and had the pythons been venous... i'd use those fangs you :) of course i never did with you and never will :), but..

all that aside, your short and sweat post blatantly violates several rules, charmingly so, yet it does. to be very factual and - most importantly - to be dang on topic in the thread about the mods and modding, i will allow myself to quote those rules. what to do with your post is up to the likes of king boonen.

lets go...since you said nothing, zilch, about the mods and modding, but a lot about other posters and nothig specic about what they posted except a dismissive on a group of posters, i wonder if you have seen this:
King Boonen wrote:Please keep the discussion on-topic. The is a thread about the moderators, it is not a surrogate member suspension appreciation/depreciation thread.

in case you did not, perhaps you've heard about this:
Post, not the poster (Play the ball, not the man

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=31010
frankly, if i read that you are suggesting a new board structure, it would be fine, i think . but you've suggested an entire group of posters, that seemingly dont post in your fave subforum (the prr - only one of the dozen plus subforums) to be moved elsewhere. sure you were not specific as to a particular url, but have you seen this:
Using the forum primarily to drive traffic to another website.
i'd agree, the rule was for a more deliberate pattern, yet, if you wish a traffic subtracted from here, it is by definition driven from here.

and some other things you said, aside from a moderating matter, seem inconsistent or perhaps not well thought thruu. such as, if you dont see someone in the PRR, it does NOT mean they are not there for instance, i read a lot that forum, particularly during the grand tours, sometimes i post. but when i see the flood of posts that buries mine, i move to 'just reading'. And it was a superb quality reading during the vuelta, for instance, including your contributions. other posters may also read the prr or chose to contribute in other subforums, like say the disk brakes etc.

to be clear, i dont want your post to be removed, but very recently some rules were applied so literally, that i wanted to draw some attention, using your post as an example :)
DJPbaltimore:'John Kerry is an honorable person and would not call out the Russians if there was not evidence', 'the 2 of you are russia stooges'
in foreign policy there are no eternal friendships or eternal enemies, only eternal interests
User avatar python
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,491
Joined: 25 Sep 2009 01:01

28 Sep 2017 19:32

A serious modding questions that has nothing to do with anything that's been posted here: how far off topic is off topic? OT is cool by me, digressions are great, but not when it's simply repeating the stuff of other threads, derailing whatever little debate there might be and turning all threads into the same thread, which these days is that British Cycling/Sky/Froome/Brailsford cheat. Could you offer some guidance on this, please? GRMA.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,979
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

28 Sep 2017 20:12

I just cannot understand why someone would use a cycling forum just to argue about politics for days, weeks, months on end. It is quite telling to me that whenever I open this thread or the now-closed Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation thread, it's always a bunch of Politics thread regulars arguing either with mods or with each other.
Anyway, I hardly ever venture into the Café section so it doesn't bother me, but it does make me wonder.
User avatar LaFlorecita
Veteran
 
Posts: 29,136
Joined: 15 May 2011 09:53
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

Re:

28 Sep 2017 20:16

Jspear wrote:I don’t want to even imagine what a politics forum looks like. :D

:eek:
User avatar LaFlorecita
Veteran
 
Posts: 29,136
Joined: 15 May 2011 09:53
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

Re:

28 Sep 2017 20:29

LaFlorecita wrote:I just cannot understand why someone would use a cycling forum just to argue about politics for days, weeks, months on end. It is quite telling to me that whenever I open this thread or the now-closed Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation thread, it's always a bunch of Politics thread regulars arguing either with mods or with each other.
Anyway, I hardly ever venture into the Café section so it doesn't bother me, but it does make me wonder.


Replace "politics" with "doping" and there's little difference.

But I think you are right. Close the Cafe. This is a cycling forum.
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,214
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

Re: Re:

28 Sep 2017 20:51

LaFlorecita wrote:
lenric wrote:
LaFlorecita wrote:
Jspear wrote:What the heck?!....When did Valv.Piti become a moderator?! Was this some undercover operation just in case people didn't like the decision? :p Under no circumstances can he moderate the AC forum. :p

Yeah, I hope they took that into consideration when they gave him the job. I'm not too comfortable with a mod who's repeatedly stated he dislikes me and my posts in the Contador thread.


Yes, because one of the requisites to be a moderator is to like everyone here and their posts...

No, but he has an obvious bias against many Contador fans on here and me in particular. So good luck to him, trying to remain objective will be hard.


The moderators of the forum, like the posters, have more diverse political formations than many fora. Brings down the focus at times, but is farvless heated and partisan.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,454
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re: Re:

28 Sep 2017 22:07

aphronesis wrote:
LaFlorecita wrote:
lenric wrote:
LaFlorecita wrote:
Jspear wrote:What the heck?!....When did Valv.Piti become a moderator?! Was this some undercover operation just in case people didn't like the decision? :p Under no circumstances can he moderate the AC forum. :p

Yeah, I hope they took that into consideration when they gave him the job. I'm not too comfortable with a mod who's repeatedly stated he dislikes me and my posts in the Contador thread.


Yes, because one of the requisites to be a moderator is to like everyone here and their posts...

No, but he has an obvious bias against many Contador fans on here and me in particular. So good luck to him, trying to remain objective will be hard.


The moderators of the forum, like the posters, have more diverse political formations than many fora. Brings down the focus at times, but is farvless heated and partisan.


Those are old posts...
Skyline Drive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPjM6rZ4pN0
_____________________________________________________________________________
Canton Ave Climb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C90ZPlbEfmU
User avatar Jspear
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,103
Joined: 23 Feb 2014 03:50
Location: N. VA, USA

Re: Re:

29 Sep 2017 02:32

patricknd wrote:
Irondan wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:
Pricey_sky wrote:
Beech Mtn wrote: Finally, it seems like a decision has been made to moderate the politics thread (and maybe other threads in the general section too) more strictly than in recent years. I assume this is going on in concert with Alpe being removed as a mod. Notice I said seems and assume. The politics thread has had more leeway for years, and this was publicly discussed on this forum and announced back when Alpe said he'd moderate those threads. If things are changing now as far as rule enforcement, bans, and what is expected of posters in those threads, it would be appropriate for the mod team to make some sort of visible announcement in the "general" subforum about the changes so that posters know what to expect.


You've hit the nail on the head there, its always been a question to me over the years how the politics thread has been given freedom compared to most other threads on this forum. We've decided no more free passes in there. It should be moderated the same as the other 100 or so other threads we have to moderate on this message board, we shouldn't give any leeway just because 'that's the way its always been'.

If members want the thread to remain open, they will have to adhere to the rules in the politics thread like everyone else, otherwise it may get locked.


There was exactly no problem in the politics thread. There was a mod there who had the respect of most, if not all, of those posting there and his suggestions/advice were adhered to with very few exceptions.

So this is another 'fix what isn't broken' moment on this board. BOB thread part deux.

So just close it. No drama. In fact close the Cafe. Very little discussion there has anything to do with cycling, which if isn't strictly against the 'rules', should be.

First of all, you're opinion that
"There was exactly no problem in the politics thread"

is completely wrong and your judgement is clouded due to the fact that you are a regular poster, or a better term would be "resident" poster that doesn't spend much time posting comments in the cycling forums, if at all. Needless to say, because of that I feel your strong opinion on the matter is skewed.

What I have a problem with is the fact that the staff knew the cafe threads were not being moderated to the standards set for the rest of the forum so when we go about fixing that issue we're told by the people who post in that section of the forum (almost exclusively) that we're not allowed to do anything without "ruining" the cafe and we should all be fired ourselves and if we ban a member for grossly abusing forum rules the forum will "empty" in response. I also have a problem with the "leeway" for the politics threads being construed as an open invitation to say anything without interference from moderators. That's just ludicrous.

I can go through the politics threads right now and remove hundreds, if not thousands of posts that are against the TOS of Immediate Media, and then go through and remove countless more that are in violation of the forum rules so please stop lecturing forum staff about what is "broken" and what is not "broken". At some point someone at the website is going to just say "close the cafe" and that will be that because there's more bans and reports generated from that subforum than even the "clinic". We have all the numbers, reports, records of bans, and all the data that says the cafe has an issue, let's leave it at that and not make a bigger issue of it.


with 52k + replies I'd say the US politics thread hasn't suffered to much being run the way it was for so long. :D

I'm sure it will be much better now though :rolleyes:


With respect, patrick, but don't you ever wonder why it is always the same people participating in those threads? I understand some people have thick skin and don't mind being abused online, mainly because they do it too and it feels mutual, but I honestly think others refuse to discuss anything political here out of fear of being bullied and ganged up on. And it's not like moderators are creating a safe space for snowflakes or whatever.

Alpe was a good mod, but he was not flawless. Scott can stop pretending everything he did was the right thing. If it weren't for the other mods intervening nothing would have been done with regards to the Foxxy/Chewbacca incident, for instance. The mutual abuse and bullying (in which many others took part) would have dragged endlessly. Allowing constant breaking of the most basic rules of engagement is not good moderation. It was shoking and irondan and the rest of the team then (where I was included) still got abused after.

Just my two cents. I think that thread could do with stricter moderation. People are just forgetting stricter here means on par with the rest of the forum. Reading these replies one would think people were being censored here.
''The battle between Démare and Bouhanni for being France's best sprinter is decided: it's Coquard.'' - BBB
User avatar BigMac
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,340
Joined: 10 Jun 2013 22:10
Location: Estoril, Portugal

29 Sep 2017 13:54

Maybe mods should lock threads where there's minimal participation from members. What do you think.... less than 10 members regular contribution should be locked? Sound about right?

theres a difference between being bullied and being challenged. My guess is if you don't know the difference then you probably shouldn't participate in the politics thread and, up to now, the moderators have been able to figure it out.

Alpe was a fantastic mod. If one is looking for perfection then one will constantly be disappointed.

Mutual abuse and bullying does happen but it's obvious and when those that do it cool off there's almost always some form of apology. Trust me, I've been on the receiving end all the way up to death threats. Yet somehow learning from others perspectives outweighs those infrequent occurrences.

Lastly, firm discussion is not equal to abuse. I've made my feelings known regarding the Alpe getting shown the door. It's not abuse... it's displeasure with the mods action.

See if you can spot the difference.
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
User avatar Scott SoCal
Veteran
 
Posts: 10,214
Joined: 08 Nov 2012 16:47
Location: Southern California

Re:

29 Sep 2017 16:41

Scott SoCal wrote:
theres a difference between being bullied and being challenged.


Yes, but what you should add is that the line between the two is not the same for everyone. What one person accepts as a challenge another may feel is bullying. You provide an obvious example later in your post when you say you’ve been subject to death threats (if you’re referring to what I think you’re referring to, technically that wasn’t a death threat, but the distinction isn’t important), but felt it was worth it from gaining more understanding of someone else’s perspective. If you can look at it in that way, that’s admirable, but I think it’s unreasonable to expect everyone else to conform to that standard. IMO, you have either a very thick skin or a very high pain threshold, but not everyone else does, nor should anyone be criticized or belittled for not being like this.

In fact, I think there's a strong correlation here: people who are the least sensitive to/affected by personal attacks on themselves tend also to be those who are least sensitive to/appreciative of the effect of such attacks on others. It’s actually not that uncommon to be able to tolerate attacks on oneself, and it’s also not that uncommon to feel great empathy for attacks on others. What in my experience is quite rare is to be capable of both at the same time. Thus not only Scott but others here who believe the mods are overreacting feel this way because they themselves don’t experience what they regard as abuse. They either always had or have developed a high tolerance for a certain level of discourse, which not only protects them from feeling hurt, but also makes it more difficult for them to understand the hurt others feel. More sensitive souls self-select out of the thread, so what’s left is a relatively small group of people who are comfortable with both attacking and being attacked.

Mutual abuse and bullying does happen but it's obvious and when those that do it cool off there's almost always some form of apology.


I can only speak from my own experience, but I’ve been subject to what I consider—let’s not say abuse, but definitely behavior that’s against the stated rules, and which led to a suspension (not just the most recent case, but others)—and I’ve never received an apology for any of it. I’m not complaining, I’ve never expected one, but the notion that when people cool off they apologize, the matter is over, and they develop more respect for each other is not one I’ve often seen play out. Not saying it never happens, but I’d say just the opposite is at least equally likely, the people involved become sensitized, so that when an offending issue arises again, the threshold is crossed even sooner.

firm discussion is not equal to abuse.


I think the standard used to distinguish the two is "play the ball, not the man". Attack someone's ideas, not the person. I've frankly never bought into the notion that there's a clear line between the two. We are in fact defined by what we think, and when our beliefs are challenged, we tend to take that as a challenge to our identity. Nowhere is this more obvious than in politics, where reams of studies have shown how our identity shapes our political beliefs.

According to this play the ball notion, calling someone a stupid idiot is not allowed, but calling his views stupid and idiotic is. What's the difference? If your views are stupid and idiotic, doesn't that make you a stupid idiot in that regard? Of course, your views on one particular issue aren't everything about who you are, but they are some of it. So are we saying it's all right to attack part of a person, but not all of him?

I don't have a solution to this problem. I've certainly called some ideas stupid, as a scientist I'd be a discredit to my profession if I didn't in some cases, but at the least I think one does have to be very aware of this problem.
Merckx index
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,163
Joined: 27 Jul 2010 19:19

29 Sep 2017 17:01

@merckx, if you want to repost this in the politics thread, i'll respond to it there in civil and expansive fashion. those incurious about the thread can take a break. and vice versa..

short response to your last paragraph (and this would be an topic moderation issue): there's not just a right or wrong view, good or bad idea: as a sensitive human (rather than just a scientist or other professional) one has to account for the multiple levels of formation, aptitude, knowledge and motivation that drive people to dialogue, respond, pronounce, whatever. Many "sensitive" people are just as blind to these strata in themselves as in anyone else, while some "aggressive" people may be highly attuned and responding to some or all aspects for outcomes other than being "right."

Acting "stupid" often serves a similar purpose but may not be an indicator of ignorance.

This is something educators have to be aware of, allow for and to mediate accordingly.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,454
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

Re:

29 Sep 2017 20:05

LaFlorecita wrote:I just cannot understand why someone would use a cycling forum just to argue about politics for days, weeks, months on end. It is quite telling to me that whenever I open this thread or the now-closed Member Suspension Appreciation/Depreciation thread, it's always a bunch of Politics thread regulars arguing either with mods or with each other.
Anyway, I hardly ever venture into the Café section so it doesn't bother me, but it does make me wonder.


Politics forums can be like a TDF thread on the queen stage. Posts go fast. You take a sleep and you lose the whole thread. There are hundreds of people.

There is an attraction for those who post her to post in a slower forum I think where you can interract with a select few members who you are familiar with. A lot of the politics posters also probably know eachother from the US cycling forums back in the day, or have similar backgrounds.

A cycling forum is as good a place to discuss it as any. Some probably lurk in the cycling threads a lot as well.
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 28,701
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

Re: Re:

29 Sep 2017 22:02

Merckx index wrote:
Scott SoCal wrote:
theres a difference between being bullied and being challenged.


Yes, but what you should add is that the line between the two is not the same for everyone. What one person accepts as a challenge another may feel is bullying. You provide an obvious example later in your post when you say you’ve been subject to death threats (if you’re referring to what I think you’re referring to, technically that wasn’t a death threat, but the distinction isn’t important), but felt it was worth it from gaining more understanding of someone else’s perspective. If you can look at it in that way, that’s admirable, but I think it’s unreasonable to expect everyone else to conform to that standard. IMO, you have either a very thick skin or a very high pain threshold, but not everyone else does, nor should anyone be criticized or belittled for not being like this.

In fact, I think there's a strong correlation here: people who are the least sensitive to/affected by personal attacks on themselves tend also to be those who are least sensitive to/appreciative of the effect of such attacks on others. It’s actually not that uncommon to be able to tolerate attacks on oneself, and it’s also not that uncommon to feel great empathy for attacks on others. What in my experience is quite rare is to be capable of both at the same time. Thus not only Scott but others here who believe the mods are overreacting feel this way because they themselves don’t experience what they regard as abuse. They either always had or have developed a high tolerance for a certain level of discourse, which not only protects them from feeling hurt, but also makes it more difficult for them to understand the hurt others feel. More sensitive souls self-select out of the thread, so what’s left is a relatively small group of people who are comfortable with both attacking and being attacked.

Mutual abuse and bullying does happen but it's obvious and when those that do it cool off there's almost always some form of apology.


I can only speak from my own experience, but I’ve been subject to what I consider—let’s not say abuse, but definitely behavior that’s against the stated rules, and which led to a suspension (not just the most recent case, but others)—and I’ve never received an apology for any of it. I’m not complaining, I’ve never expected one, but the notion that when people cool off they apologize, the matter is over, and they develop more respect for each other is not one I’ve often seen play out. Not saying it never happens, but I’d say just the opposite is at least equally likely, the people involved become sensitized, so that when an offending issue arises again, the threshold is crossed even sooner.

firm discussion is not equal to abuse.


I think the standard used to distinguish the two is "play the ball, not the man". Attack someone's ideas, not the person. I've frankly never bought into the notion that there's a clear line between the two. We are in fact defined by what we think, and when our beliefs are challenged, we tend to take that as a challenge to our identity. Nowhere is this more obvious than in politics, where reams of studies have shown how our identity shapes our political beliefs.

According to this play the ball notion, calling someone a stupid idiot is not allowed, but calling his views stupid and idiotic is. What's the difference? If your views are stupid and idiotic, doesn't that make you a stupid idiot in that regard? Of course, your views on one particular issue aren't everything about who you are, but they are some of it. So are we saying it's all right to attack part of a person, but not all of him?

I don't have a solution to this problem. I've certainly called some ideas stupid, as a scientist I'd be a discredit to my profession if I didn't in some cases, but at the least I think one does have to be very aware of this problem.



Your post is nuanced and well stated. I agree with plenty of it. Just one small thing about bullying (1st paragraph). At least this is just an online forum. If someone feels bullied, if their feelings are hurt or if they are just sensitive, they can leave the conversation. I've been in conversations before where I was the only one pushing a certain viewpoint. I had to pick and choose when I'd take the time to get in knee deep and go back and forth with multiple different posters or just ignore what was said and leave the thread. That's a very real option. It's hard to actually get bullied on this very impersonal forum where we hardly know anything about each other.

Right now the political climate of our country is so tumultuous, that the cafe is probably a safer place to talk then in person with actual people. People can hide behind the safety of their computers, not worry about people getting into their safe space, and actually think a little to form a coherent argument about whatever the subject.
Skyline Drive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPjM6rZ4pN0
_____________________________________________________________________________
Canton Ave Climb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C90ZPlbEfmU
User avatar Jspear
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,103
Joined: 23 Feb 2014 03:50
Location: N. VA, USA

Re:

02 Oct 2017 11:58

fmk_RoI wrote:A serious modding questions that has nothing to do with anything that's been posted here: how far off topic is off topic? OT is cool by me, digressions are great, but not when it's simply repeating the stuff of other threads, derailing whatever little debate there might be and turning all threads into the same thread, which these days is that British Cycling/Sky/Froome/Brailsford cheat. Could you offer some guidance on this, please? GRMA.


Catching up and I see no-one answered you so I will try.

If someone posts something that is clearly off-topic and belongs in another thread then that isn't cool. An effort must be made to post in the relevant thread. Obvious off-topic posting stuff is obvious. Even the stuff people think they are cleverly hiding is. This can include making comparisons to others, dragging accusations in from other threads etc.

Digressions are fine, any thread that continues for more than a few posts will no-doubt change and grow to incorporate relevant areas of discussion. The problem this brings up is your second item, repeated postings of the same material across multiple threads.

Lets Take Rider X on Team Y supporting Rider Z in Race A. Both riders have a thread, the team does and the race does and these threads are already large. Rider X is flagged for doping in Race A, where do you post that information and discuss it? Well it obviously belongs in Rider X's thread, but it's relevant to Team Y, Rider Z and Race A so arguably is should go in every thread. To make the choice harder, discussion of team-wide problems has gone on in the Team Y thread including Rider X and Rider Z. Does the more relevant discussion over the implications of this one rider returning a positive for the rest of the team belong in the Team Y thread? Or the separate rider threads, or all? And it should go in the race thread as a general point. You either end up with repeated posts or fragmented discussions as people start in one thread discussing the same thing that is already under discussion in another thread. There's no way we can effectively maintain all conversations in relevant threads and direct people to the right place all the time.


Basically it's really, really difficult at times if the information is at least relevant. When a thread has obviously moved to a discussion that a thread already exists for it's pretty easy to tell but many times it isn't. Take motor doping discussions. There is the one thread where it is being discussed but then it is spreading across every single rider thread and at times it makes the clinic almost unreadable. However, if people think someone is motor-doping then it should be discussed and naturally people will look in that rider's thread as well as the motor doping thread.

Hope that helps, not surprised if it doesn't though!
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Moderator
 
Posts: 6,469
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

02 Oct 2017 17:48

To the admin who deleted Scott's posts, I would apreciate it if you would content yourself with editing out the personal attacks and leave the rest of it as it was. Taking out the whole thing seems pointless to me.
kingjr
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,533
Joined: 09 Sep 2012 18:53
Location: Germany

Re:

02 Oct 2017 17:53

kingjr wrote:To the admin who deleted Scott's posts, I would aprreciate it if you would content yourself with editing out the personal attacks and leave the rest of it as it was. Taking out the whole thing seems pointless to me.
Everyone runs the risk of having an entire comment removed if any part of the comment violates forum rules.

Personally, I dislike editing comments tremendously and will leave his comments out of the discussion.
Darryl Webster wrote:
"Nothing seems to blind peeps as much as patriotism does it!"
User avatar Irondan
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,174
Joined: 30 Apr 2014 02:13
Location: Seattle, WA

02 Oct 2017 17:57

That's a pity.
kingjr
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,533
Joined: 09 Sep 2012 18:53
Location: Germany

02 Oct 2017 18:02

I could quote dj's post and reconstruct it, but I'm busy and never learned that block quote. thing.
aphronesis
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,454
Joined: 30 Jul 2011 16:47
Location: Bed-Stuy

PreviousNext

Return to About the forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Back to top